Novartis: employee ‘liked’ Cosentyx study post on LinkedIn, triggering POM promotion and certification breaches (AUTH/3421/11/20)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3421/11/20
Company	Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK
Complainant	Contactable complainant (concerned UK health professional)
Product	Cosentyx (secukinumab)
Channel	LinkedIn (employee personal account activity)
Content at issue	Employee ‘liked’ a post/headline: “Novartis’ Cosentyx reduces synovitis in new psoriatic arthritis study” (linked to Pharma Times article; article not provided)
Core issue	Promotion of a prescription only medicine to the public; missing non-proprietary name adjacency; lack of certification
Breach clauses	4.3, 9.1, 14.1, 26.1, 26.2
No breach clauses	2, 26.3, 29
Appeal	Yes (Novartis appealed Clause 29 and Clause 2; appeal successful)
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated
Complaint received	12 November 2020
Case completed	22 July 2021
Applicable Code year	2019

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

A UK health professional complained about Cosentyx (secukinumab) promotion on LinkedIn by Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK.
The complainant provided a screenshot of a named Novartis employee’s LinkedIn profile showing they had ‘liked’ a news story; the profile displayed the Novartis logo and the statement: “Novartis’ Cosentyx reduces synovitis in new psoriatic arthritis study”.
The post appeared linked to a Pharma Times article (the article itself was not provided by either party).
The complainant alleged: no evidence of certification, no generic name, and promotion to the public; and referenced a prior similar case (AUTH/3038/4/18) and an alleged breach of undertaking.
Novartis said the employee acted on their personal LinkedIn account, without company instruction; Novartis accepted that the ‘like’ brought the matter into scope and conceded a breach of Clause 26.1.
The Panel considered that a ‘like’ could proactively disseminate content to connections and potentially beyond direct connections depending on privacy settings.
Novartis appealed findings relating to the undertaking/Clause 2 (but accepted the other breach findings).

⚖️

⌄

Breach upheld: Clauses 4.3, 9.1, 14.1, 26.1, 26.2.
No breach (after appeal): Clauses 2, 26.3, 29.
The Appeal Board accepted that “all possible steps” in an undertaking should generally mean all reasonable, proportionate and lawful steps, and found it had not been established that Novartis failed to comply with its prior undertaking.

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access